Chess will never be solved, here's why

Sort:
stancco

You all ignore the fact chess is already solved only because you have no access to the solution

Elroch
Optimissed wrote:

I will tell you, however, that this:
:
<<And one style of perfect play. Could and would perform differently against the other non perfect chess players in the rating pool.>>
:
is complete and utter drivel. You have no argument to support what you say at all.

Optimissed wrote:

<<And one style of perfect play. Could and would perform differently against the other non perfect chess players in the rating pool.>>
:
Whereas I already pointed that out.

@Optimissed, you quoted the exact same text twice, first saying it was "complete and utter drivel" and then saying that you had "already pointed it out".
Frank self-criticism? wink.png

orev124

(:

panz3ru

Quantum computers may solve it in the future.

N_G-9
Chess played perfectly is always a draw
Festerthetester

Arguing differing points of view is not trolling. Getting mildly upset over being disagreed with is not trolling either.

Post #9206, and the previous few by the same poster is trolling.

mpaetz
Optimissed wrote:

:
Incidentally, it supports what I was saying about "perfect moves" being bad and confusing nomenclature. "Good moves" makes more sense and is maybe more accurate. Any move is a good move when it does its job, which is not to lose by force.

So if I miss an easy mate-in-three combination but don't make a mistake serious enough to cause me to lose by force I have "made a good move"?

mpaetz
shangtsung111 wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

:
Incidentally, it supports what I was saying about "perfect moves" being bad and confusing nomenclature. "Good moves" makes more sense and is maybe more accurate. Any move is a good move when it does its job, which is not to lose by force.

So if I miss an easy mate-in-three combination but don't make a mistake serious enough to cause me to lose by force I have "made a good move"?

if mate threat continues even though opponent makes best moves,yes they're a good moves,but if opponents best moves makes him survive and equalize the game, then they're blunders.

Agreed, so that's why I was questioning the other poster's "improved" definition of "perfect play".

Festerthetester

There is no perfect move in the majority of possibilities during a game. It is similar to the art of war. For every weapon there is a defense. For every defense there is a new weapon.

As far as the topic is concerned, I agree with the OP fifteen months ago although I might have worded it differently.

To wit:

So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago. 

If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved. 

Kyobir

checkers has been solved though (checkers played perfectly is a draw)

mpaetz
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

:
Incidentally, it supports what I was saying about "perfect moves" being bad and confusing nomenclature. "Good moves" makes more sense and is maybe more accurate. Any move is a good move when it does its job, which is not to lose by force.

So if I miss an easy mate-in-three combination but don't make a mistake serious enough to cause me to lose by force I have "made a good move"?

In the context of playing moves that don't lose or perhaps you'd rather that you'd made a perfect move? People just can't grasp logic here.

Yes, in the example I cited I would have.preferred to have found the "perfect move" that would have actually WON the game rather than played something that just didn't lead to a forced loss.

mpaetz

A couple of points:

You are assuming that chess MUST be a draw with best play, a contention that has by no means been proved.

If your definition of "good move" changes with the situation on the board, then your original explanation of the term was indeed imprecise.

mpaetz

First you defined your "better" term "good move" as something that does not lead to loss by force. Then you defined it as something that preserves the win. Now you define it as anything that doesn't alter the game-state. Perhaps your first definition WAS imprecise, which was all I was trying to point out.

People will pay a pretty penny to play a simul vs a world-champion despite the fact that they are almost certain to lose. They continue to play chess even though engines have proved that humans cannot play perfectly. They will continue to play even if it turns out machines can force a win from move one.

I apologize for any mistaken impression you may have drawn from my previous post--I should have said "a contention that has not been proved to everyone's satisfaction".

MARattigan
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

:
Incidentally, it supports what I was saying about "perfect moves" being bad and confusing nomenclature. "Good moves" makes more sense and is maybe more accurate. Any move is a good move when it does its job, which is not to lose by force.

So if I miss an easy mate-in-three combination but don't make a mistake serious enough to cause me to lose by force I have "made a good move"?

In the context of playing moves that don't lose or perhaps you'd rather that you'd made a perfect move? People just can't grasp logic here.

Yes, in the example I cited I would have.preferred to have found the "perfect move" that would have actually WON the game rather than played something that just didn't lead to a forced loss.

:
It's a given, though, that you can never make a move that wins the game if the opponent hasn't already made a move that loses it. If that does happen, the situation changes and a good move is anything which preserves the win.

That's why we need agreement on the meaning of the words in use.

Would you normally call Rb8 a good move in this positon? (We can agree to call it "perfect", but I wouldn't call it "good".)

White to play, ply count 0
 

Or try this White win (as White) against both SF and the top moves from Syzygy.

Black to play, ply count 0
 

We know the top moves from Syzygy are perfect (what you've just referred to as "good") and those from SF are quite often not. Which of the two would you really say is making good moves?

Festerthetester

In my opinion psychology has about as much place in a chess game as on a race track or a poker game. No one cares why a NASCAR driver made a risk maneuver to pass or poker player made an iffy bet to bluff his hand. All that matters is the success or failure of the move. If the driver wins the position or the race, or the gambler wins the hand, the move was a good one. If not the moves were the wrong ones.

TOASTY_GHOSTY8

you look delishose

TOASTY_GHOSTY8

i smell your hair

TOASTY_GHOSTY8

you monkey

TOASTY_GHOSTY8

jokes on you i already reported you for terroristic threats.

TOASTY_GHOSTY8

this is my form